Remarkably, the thickness of the upper film is much smaller than that of the lower one: in the example of showed in figure REF , \(\delta h_{\infty } = 1.97 \times 10^{-4}\)  while \(h_{1,\infty } = 1.33 \times 10^{-2}\)  or, in terms of rescaled quantities, \(\delta \hat{h}_\infty =\delta h_\infty \, Ca^{-2/3} = 1.97 \times 10^{-2}\)  while \(\hat{h}_{1,\infty } = h_{1,\infty } \, Ca^{-2/3} = 1.33\) . Note that, with this normalization, the rescaled thickness for a one-liquid Landau-Levich-Derjaguin film would simply be \(\hat{h}_{\mathrm {LLD}} = 0.9458\) , as the corresponding dimensional thickness is equal to \(0.9458 \, \ell _c \, Ca^{2/3}\)  [1]}.
As we will see further down in section , this feature (\(\delta \hat{h}_\infty \ll \hat{h}_{1,\infty }\) ) is observed in all the parameter ranges explored in this work.
We can already notice that differences in the properties of liquids 1 and 2 are not sufficient to account for such a discrepancy because the dimensional capillary lengths \(\ell _{c,1}\)  and \(\ell _{c,2}\) , corresponding to interfaces (I) and (II) respectively, remain of the same order of magnitude: \(\ell _{c,2}/\ell _{c,1} = \sqrt{\Sigma \left(1/R - 1\right)} = 0.208 - 0.406\) 
for all parameters considered in our study (see table REF ).
As we will develop in next paragraphs, the difference in the order of magnitude of \(h_{1,\infty }\)  and \(\delta h_{\infty }\)  is connected to the very different flow patterns conveying liquid into the lower and upper films.
